Can a liberal elitist also be an intellectual?

One of the typical fall back positions of the liberal left is to denigrate the intellectual capacity of those who disagree with their positions on issues. If you are pro-life you have obviously never studied REAL science. If you do not believe that Al Gore is a true prophet, you must forecast the weather by using tea leaves while living in a cave furnished with animal skins. If you don't believe that taxing the middle class and small business is the only way to achieve prosperity, you must be a real fan of Dickens' Scrooge and completely out of touch where true economics are concerned. If your business grosses over $250,000 a year you must be rich, even if your costs add up to $225,000 a year. As Van Jones called out to a questioner, "How's that capitalism working for ya?"

To the liberal elite, an intellectual answer is achieved by the tactics of name calling and a reliance on circular reasoning, not critical thinking. If a chink in that reasoning is revealed...then, if you are the liberal, you up the volume and drown out the argument. Socrates would be appalled, but how many liberals even know who Socrates was? I have found that two sides is the barest minimum of views on any given issue. Given the complexity of this world, two dozen to two billion would be a closer approximation, and yet I have found very few on the left-hand side of the aisle comfortable in examining those alternatives.

The so-called intellectuals put forth by the liberal elite have no more capacity to follow a trail of logic than can a bloodhound follow a trail with a sinus infection. In fact, most of those chosen by the liberal media as spokespeople seem to exhibit effective IQs of roughly room temperature. The problem I have with these microcephalic wonders is that they refuse to even consider thinking outside of the box. Liberalism has become their religion. Hatred of America and all it stands for...including the freedom they are given to oppose her...is a sacrament, right behind that of abortion. Consider the current embarrassment of commentator Ed Shultz.

As an example, I asked a liberal commentator why no elitist intellectuals complained about the abuses of the Taliban against women. The answer was typical, "I guess you don't know how to Google."  The proper language is, “to use Google”, but that is nitpicking. A check using Google's search engine brings up nothing other than vague responses by the liberals when confronted with the Taliban's treatment of women. These "humanitarians" are far more incensed by Sarah Palin's motherhood than they are about an Afghan teenager being stoned to death for refusing to be raped. You can find nothing about their concern over the African tribal ritual of genital mutilation of young girls. No, of far greater import is whether or not an American school girl violated the first amendment in a commencement speech. Yes, I can see where using a religious phrase in a school speech is a real danger to our country. Extreme sarcasm intended.

If one is going to claim greater concern for humanity over another than that concern has to be exhibited in more than casual lip service.

Columbia University, an icon of intellectual thought, invited Iranian President Ackminawhackjob (misspelling intentional) to speak. This same bastion of fairness has refused the ROTC to have a presence as well as other potential conservative dangers. How many Iranian dissidents has Columbia invited to speak? None.  Can a liberal elitist also be an intellectual? Based on current evidence, I don't think so. To be truly intellectual means one has the capacity to think outside of the box, to use your imagination and learning capabilities effectively and to be able to grow in that capacity. Liberals, at least those they choose to be their public voice are not showing that capacity. Critical thinking, the ability to see the chain of cause and effect and follow it to its logical end result has to be exercised. Using the latest politically correct response is doing nothing but show ignorance.  

Hope and change? That was the Obama mantra. To paraphrase an earlier-mentioned gadfly, “How’s that change working for ya?” I don’t think sliding back to the wonderful days of the early 1930’s is change that brings any hope. I don’t think filling our schools with a forced emphasis on diversity over core educational skills is a change for the better. Is it intellectual superiority to champion a philosophy that has created more illiterates since that of Pol Pot? And yet liberals such as David Broder, Joe Klein, Maureen Dowd, Michael Kinsley and far too many others all claim intellectual superiority in spite of the evidence to the contrary. How many of you knew that the revolutionary’s icon Che Guevara was a medical doctor? Did you also know that he is also a mass murderer who used an old Spanish fort’s moat for his favorite pastime, public executions? http://www.brookesnews.com/072210fontova.html

Liberals continuously talk about civil rights, but they have always been the first to refuse the exercise of those rights to those who disagree with their stance on any given issue. To the liberal intellectual elite, you have only one constitutional right, the right to remain silent. In our present day United States more than one citizen wishing to express an opinion has been silenced, tossed out of a public meeting or in a few cases, jailed; all for simply desiring to exercise their constitutional rights. If recent memory serves, did not Nancy Pelosi bemoan that blogs such as this were allowed to be published? Did she not suggest a Homeland Security investigation into those who dared to question Obama’s semi-deity?

The bill of rights exists for a reason. The men who crafted that document and all of the other documents that stand as the foundation of our freedoms knew firsthand what life was like under an oppressive regime. I would hate to see this country bow to another aristocracy.